From what I understand, the USADA can't strip him of any titles. That's something only the UCI can do, and the UCI is pretty skeptical of what is going on, considering Lance has yet to produce a failed drug test.

I loved his first memoir so much, was SO moved by it, especially since my cousin was diagnosed with cancer at 30 and give months to live around the time I read it. That's kinda how I want to remember him.

He may be a jerk, an a-hole, etc., but don't you still need to have proof other than the word of those who were caught cheating? This reminds me of what happened to Gary Condit. Did he cheat on his wife, yes, but that didn't make him a killer. With no proof whatsoever, the implications abounded. Turns out, he didn't do it. Innocent until proven guilty? Seems not anymore.

He may be a jerk, an a-hole, etc., but don't you still need to have proof other than the word of those who were caught cheating? This reminds me of what happened to Gary Condit. Did he cheat on his wife, yes, but that didn't make him a killer. With no proof whatsoever, the implications abounded. Turns out, he didn't do it. Innocent until proven guilty? Seems not anymore.

Sent from my iPhone using CurlTalk

Originally Posted by juanab

someone wrote this:

To quote someone (I don't remember who), if he was doping, Lance beat a bunch of fellow dopers. If he didn't dope, he still beat a bunch of dopers

I'm confused. I'm not a sports fan in any way so I usually don't pay much attention. But if there is no proof he was doping, how can they ban him and take away his wins?
I don't care about his personal life in the least. He can cheat on his wife, he can be an a$$hole or a prick or a snob. No matter to me. But if there's no proof he has ever cheated in sports, then how can he be accused of cheating?

They were interviewing another biker on the radio tonight. He said they are tested so often and so randomly (he said he had been pulled out of bed in the middle of the night to pee), that there is just no way that he was clean every single time if he was taking anything, or using masking agents.

Totally agree with Jeepy, his personal life is irrevelant here.

I believe in manicures. I believe in overdressing. I believe in primping at leisure and wearing lipstick. I believe in pink. I believe that laughing is the best calorie burner. I believe in kissing, kissing a lot. I believe in being strong when everything seems to be going wrong. I believe that happy girls are the prettiest girls. I believe that tomorrow is another day and I believe in miracles.
Audrey Hepburn

I'm confused. I'm not a sports fan in any way so I usually don't pay much attention. But if there is no proof he was doping, how can they ban him and take away his wins? I don't care about his personal life in the least. He can cheat on his wife, he can be an a$$hole or a prick or a snob. No matter to me. But if there's no proof he has ever cheated in sports, then how can he be accused of cheating?

I have a little knowledge of the sport and my husband has a lot of knowledge of the sport. They test so often and randomly that it's pretty hard to never test positive if you're doping. Not only that, the French have been after him since his first win and have tested and retested his blood samples over the years. If there was anything, they would have found it.

I understand that it has been fairly commonplace over the years to take low levels of testosterone and the like--enough to help but not enough to be over the line in a test. I imagine Lance isn't 100% innocent. However, there's no evidence of that.

Anyway, I'm with the camp that says that just because he's an ******* doesn't mean he deserves to have his wins taken away. And who are they going to give the wins to? More dopers?